I agree with the reasoning behind this (meaning I think this is a right way to
do it).
However IMHO in order to stop complaint from both sides, this should probably
be documented. Just a note in isntall instructions should suffice..
(There are some related notes at the moment, but not exactly about that. And
yes, it is quite apperent from the script itself, but how many people
actually read it?)
George
On Sunday 16 March 2003 11:08, Jon Portnoy wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 04:03:01PM -0300, Felipe Ghellar wrote:
> > Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > >On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 10:22:26AM +0100, Per Wigren wrote:
> > >>During the installation I set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" in /etc/make.conf,
> > >>but when running bootstrap.sh it gets ignored..
> > >
> > >This is not a bug, this is a feature. :-)
> >
> > Ignoring the user settings is not a feature, it's a bug. Especially in a
> > meta-distribution, where the system should be built just the way the
> > _user_ wants it (in contrast with the way the _developers_ want it).
> >
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11374
> >
> > Felipe Ghellar
> >
> >
> > --
>
> It doesn't ignore what the user wants. It just doesn't look where you
> think it should.
>
> If someone really wants to use newer packages to bootstrap, they can
> edit the packages file in their profile. Otherwise things can
> potentially break and we get more bug reports.
>
> I actually believe that the package versions in the profile should
> probably be upped because it's somewhat outdated. However, if you want
> to tune your settings for bootstrap, do it in places other than
> make.conf and don't file bug reports if something breaks in the process.
>
> Users can do anything they want in make.conf after bootstapping.
>
> If someone has a special need to use newer packages during bootstrap,
> they can edit profiles/<profile>/packages.